How did Andy Heller become an award-winning journalist? Perhaps his grammar and punctuation is (sic) very good. His logic certainly is not. In his Oct. 5 column "New energy drink just stupid," he ridicules a beverage maker for calling their drink "cocaine." Where does he think the name "'COCA'- cola" comes from? He should do some research on this subject. There is a product called "Mate Coca" sold by a company in Bolivia. It really does have "cocaine" in it. The natural coca leaf contains the alkaloid cocaine. So what? The natural coffee bean contains the alkaloid "caffeine." Looking at this from a strictly botanical and chemical point of view, what's the difference between the effects of cocaine and the effects of caffeine? Their both stimulants. [continues 107 words]
A June 1 guest column, "Lawmakers need to listen up," stated: "The majority of Americans want their physicians, not politicians, to decide if marijuana should be used to ease suffering in sick patients." Isn't this true with any medicinal drug? All controlled substances are placed under one of five schedules. The Drug Enforcement Administration, not doctors, decides which substances are prohibited. Both marijuana and heroin are on schedule one, which, according to the DEA, has no medical use. If marijuana has medical use, it stands to reason that heroin has medical use. In the United Kingdom, heroin can be prescribed by doctors to relieve severe pain. Heroin has also been found to be effective with terminally ill cancer patients. If people want their doctors, and not the DEA, to decide what is medicine and what is not, this should apply to "all" medicine, not just marijuana. Randy Vizyak Mukwonago [end]
Re "Decriminalizing Dope," Letters, April 13: The letter writer said they were a heavy and daily pot smoker, were married to a dealer and are against legalizing cannabis, but in favour of lowering the penalty. They say they want to break the law but not be punished for it. If I were a judge, here's what I would do to all persons 30 years of age or older who came before me on a drug charge: I would ask them to produce evidence showing that they have tried to change the drug laws. If they could produce such evidence, I would let them go free. If they could not, I would send them to jail. Not because drugs are so bad, but because they are so irresponsible. [continues 53 words]
After reading "Willie Horton Multiplied" ("Taking Liberties" by Joel McNally, March 9) I looked at some Web sites for the Wisconsin attorney general race. Paul Bucher criticizes Kathleen Falk for wanting to legalize marijuana. Unfortunately, that's not true. In a 2002 interview Falk said she was "reviewing literature on that subject." Now carry this to its logical conclusion. Let's say Falk was reviewing an essay by congressman Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, who said the federal drug laws should be repealed so that states can make their own laws. Maybe Nevada legalizes it and Alabama doesn't. This is what happened with liquor laws after the 18th Amendment was repealed in 1933. [continues 100 words]
RE: "Kids who drink need help (SDN Aug. 22) I am replying to Dennis Kaiser's letter. With all respects, if his two Vietnam buddies had been passed out from alcohol instead of hashish, would he propose a reinstatement of alcohol prohibition like we had in the 1920s? Children should not drink alcohol. Neither should they drive a car before age 16. And 15-year-old girls should not have sex until they grow up and get married. The problem with the "Just Say No to Drugs" message is that it draws no distinction between adults and children, use and abuse or legal (alcohol) and illegal (cannabis). It's just a blurry slogan with no coherent thought. Cannabis should be taxed and regulated like alcohol and moderation, which is the biblical teaching, should be emphasized. Randy Vizyak Mukwonago, Wisc. [end]
I'm replying to Connie Molbeck's thoughtful letter "Less Costly Jail options" (Aug 8). I am one of those people who believe words have meaning. Take, for example, the phrase "nonviolent criminal". The guys at Enron who stole everyones' pension money are "nonviolent". So is wire fraud and burglary. These people commit "property crimes". In contrast, the people who choose marijuana instead of martini's are punished for choosing the politically incorrect intoxicant. I say change the drug laws. Leave the cannabis user alone and punish the "nonviolent" crooks. [continues 93 words]
The Journal's Aug. 8 editorial "Seed seller was aware of risks," (Aug. 8) states, "Canada is in the slow process of decriminalizing marijuana possession, although not its production or sale." What does that do except create lawlessness? Former U.S. president Richard Nixon said "you can't have marijuana half-legal and half-illegal." It's either illegal and you enforce the law, or you change the law and have marijuana taxed and regulated. Do Canadians want to show the U.S. government their sovereignty? Then legalize marijuana. This American stands with you. Or are you just our colony? Randy Vizyak Mukwonago, Wis. [end]
Let's talk about beer the way letter writer Bill Moore talks about marijuana (You Can't Justify Marijuana Use By Quoting the Bible, May 19). "Beer contains alcohol which is a dangerous mind-altering substance. It causes dizziness and vomiting. Beer damages the liver and is a cause of domestic violence. Teens who become addicted to beer suffer emotional problems, and today's beer is 10 times more potent than it was 20 years ago." Common sense dictates that some of this information is false, and that the line is blurred between use and abuse as well as between adults and children. And yet this is the fallacy used by prohibitionists when they talk about marijuana. [continues 122 words]
I wish to comment on the March 15 editorial "County already cooperates on fighting drug war." What exactly is it we're fighting? Marijuana is by far the most widely used illicit substance. When the Marijuana Tax Act was passed in 1937, there were a reported 800 marijuana arrests nationwide. In 1970, there were about 200,000 marijuana arrests. In 2003, there were about 750,000 marijuana arrests, and mostly for possession of small amounts. If marijuana prohibition was meant to stop its use, it has been worse than a miserable failure. [continues 80 words]
Concerning The Invasive Drug Testing Of City Workers (Watchdog, 12/31/04): Let's look at some recent court cases. In 2000, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that city of Seattle employees cannot submit to a "pre-employment" urine test because it invades privacy. In 2004, the Arizona State Supreme Court ruled that "random drug testing" of fire-fighters was unconstitutional. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that welfare recipients cannot be tested for drugs. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in "Chandler v. Miller, i997" that elected public officials cannot be tested for drugs because it invades privacy. Wisconsin labor law prohibits honesty (lie detector) testing. Whether one uses cannabis off-duty or not is irrelevant. People in Madison need to find some backbone and fight for their right to off-duty privacy. Randy Vizyak Mukwonago [end]
I have a question regarding a letter on Wednesday in which the writer said drugs will destroy the United States. It is a fact that opium and coca products were legal in the United States until passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. It is also a fact that cannabis products (marijuana) were legal until the 20th century. Utah was the first state to outlaw marijuana in 1915; it was legal in Wisconsin until 1935. It was not prohibited nationally until passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. [continues 76 words]
The Jan 14 editorial, "Time to nip meth problem in the bud," stated we need more legislation enacted to fight methamphatamine use. Before we pass more laws and spend more money, let's look at some facts. Amphetamines were legal over the counter without a prescription until 1954. The Apollo 13 astronauts were ordered to take amphetamines during their mission. The military used to give amphetamines to air crews to help them fight fatigue. Truckers would take them on long hauls. So let's not exaggerate the dangers of amphetamines. [continues 87 words]
I wish to rebut the Dec. 29 letter titled "Legalizing Drugs Won't Fix Problem" by the writer from Drug Prevention Ministries. The federal government spends tens of billions of dollars every year on its drug war. The government's war on drugs has resulted in civil liberties violations such as suspicionless drug testing. Tax-exempt organizations like "Drug Prevention Ministries" stand to gain from the drug war bureaucracy by having our hard-earned tax dollars diverted to their pockets through "faith-based initiatives." That is the truth, and as the Bible says "know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Randy Vizyak, Mukwonago, Wis. [end]
After reading about the medicinal marijuana case before the U.S. Supreme Court, it reminded me of a very old book I recently came across ("Possible abuse of medical pot debated," Nov. 30). The book stated: "Demand for modification is frequently heard. If by modification is meant a lowering of the penalties and 'medicinal liquor,' such demand is for the most part simply a request that Congress enlarge its hypocrisy by inviting an increase in law violation. Demands for such modifications are foolish and futile." [continues 84 words]
This is a response to John Kojis' Aug 24 letter "Marijuana's Illegal" which concerned workplace drug testing and medical marijuana. Urine testing cannot determine when a drug was used. The test measures leftover "metabolites". An employee who smoked marijuana on Saturday night can test positive the following Wednesday, long after the drug has ceased to have any effect. At the same time, a worker can snort cocaine on the way to work and test negative that morning. That's because the cocaine has not metabolized and will therefore not show up in a person's urine. An employee can drink a six pack of beer every night and pass a drug test every morning, because alcohol cannot be detected after 8 hours. [continues 168 words]
Regarding your June 4 editorial, "Marijuana laws are not City Council's business": I can respect the fact that the Duluth City Council, like all city councils, has important local business to take care of. But when it comes to debating the nation's "war on drugs" there is no debate at any level of government. The federal government wages its war on drugs without allowing debate, as do all state governments. Billions of dollars are wasted on this despotic war, not to mention civil liberties violations, and we can't discuss it because there are more important things. Minnesota's former Gov. Jesse Ventura is calling for a debate on America's failed and costly war on drugs. Bring it on. Randy Vizyak Mukwonago, Wis. [end]
Considering all the discussion on drunk driving we need to look at the "Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004" (HR 3922). This federal legislation demands all states enact statues sanctioning anyone who operates a motor vehicle "while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the persons blood, urine, saliva or other bodily substances." Let's look at this scientifically: Marijuana metabolites (THC) can be detected in blood up to 22 hours after use, but the effects of marijuana last only two to three hours. This is the equivalent of arresting a sober driver for drunk driving on Thursday afternoon because they had a few drinks on Wednesday evening. No reasonable person would approve of such a law. We should oppose this bill on the grounds that it violates the commandment "you shall not accuse your neighbor falsely." Our nation's 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, said "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance (moderation). It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason and makes a crime of things that are not crimes." Randy Vizyak Mukwonago [end]
I got a good laugh from Bill O'Reilly's March 9 editorial, "This Bud's not for you." O'Reilly chastised Anheuser-Busch for hiring rap singer Ludacris to push their beer because Ludacris is a bad example for children. What promotional method does O'Reilly suggest Anheuser-Busch use to sell their products to children? Last I heard you had to be a legal adult to drink beer. O'Reilly said, "Does Anheuser-Busch realize that millions of children digest the garbage Ludacris puts out?" Well, if 13-year-olds shouldn't be digesting Ludacris' rap music, then maybe they shouldn't be digesting a six pack of Budweiser either, right? [continues 119 words]
The Nov. 6 "Media Musings" column entitled "Things Most of Us Believe" mentioned the recent Supreme Court decision on medical marijuana. It also mentioned that most people believe only Bush and the Republicans were opposed to this marijuana issue but that it was actually Clinton who put the draconian law into effect. Good point! If people think that the Democrats are more liberal on the marijuana issue, they are greatly mistaken. Clinton not only continued the war on drugs but intensified it. Clinton's Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, Donna Shalala, also spoke strongly against marijuana use. In 2000 Al Gore campaigned on more "drug testing" in the workplace when asked about marijuana. [continues 81 words]
I have to commend the Editorial Board on the Nov. 17 editorial "The makings of bad law." The Assembly bill that denies financial aid to students convicted of selling drugs punishes a drug offender more severely than an armed robber or murderer. It's OK if a student steals my car, just as long as he doesn't grow a marijuana plant. The bill should be defeated in the Senate. However, I must challenge the board on the statement "Drug dealing is a serious offense." That's true in the same way that selling liquor was a serious offense in 1929. Punishment should be inflicted on those who commit crimes against people and property, where there are victims. [continues 63 words]
